Full Frame or....

[jbylake]

Thanks to all. So much great info to digest. I've read every word of it, so your time wasn't wasted. I'm pretty sure I've made up my mind. Now the mind blowing task of learning the "art of digital" begins. Years of shooting film carries over, but the conversion to learning how to do the same thing with digitals looks pretty daunting, but it's a challenge I'm looking forward too. Heck, I have to google a lot of the terms and acronyms that are specific to digital photography and camera's, just to understand some of the posts. I'm going to try to find an instructor around here, I'm very interested in possibly getting into portraits and maybe far off in the future, weddings, if I live that long.. (good thing about being retired, at 58, don't have to rush). Mostly, though, it will be getting back into photography, after about a 3+ year hiatus. Also can't wait for instant results, w/o developing neg's, bathroom darkrooms etc. I'll keep checking for more opinions up until the minute I call and order my body and first lens. I thought this thread petered out a day ago, and almost missed a few more very informative posts. Thank you all again for your time.
J.

 

[jaomul]

Thanks to all. So much great info to digest. I've read every word of it, so your time wasn't wasted. I'm pretty sure I've made up my mind. Now the mind blowing task of learning the "art of digital" begins. Years of shooting film carries over, but the conversion to learning how to do the same thing with digitals looks pretty daunting, but it's a challenge I'm looking forward too. Heck, I have to google a lot of the terms and acronyms that are specific to digital photography and camera's, just to understand some of the posts. I'm going to try to find an instructor around here, I'm very interested in possibly getting into portraits and maybe far off in the future, weddings, if I live that long.. (good thing about being retired, at 58, don't have to rush). Mostly, though, it will be getting back into photography, after about a 3+ year hiatus. Also can't wait for instant results, w/o developing neg's, bathroom darkrooms etc. I'll keep checking for more opinions up until the minute I call and order my body and first lens. I thought this thread petered out a day ago, and almost missed a few more very informative posts. Thank you all again for your time.
J.

If you are interested in good and instant results I suggest you also look into what type of software you intend on using. Read also a bit on raw and jpeg editing, so you can make a good decision which is right for you.

Capture one, dxo optics 10 and lightroom are just 3 such software packages that you have to pay for, but they all give free trials, so you can try them all. You will also get free editing software with your camera. Picassa is free from google, its basic but does some things nice and its great for collages, emailing and I find it great for printing, but that's just my opinion.

Youtube is a great resource for info on all this type of stuff. Enjoy

 

[weepete]

I don't see any major draw back for most people shooting full frame. So yeah, if you have enough cash go for it.

And to my mind thats the real difference between full frame and crop, mainly price.

It's unlikely you'll outgrow a good high quality APS-C sensor with the top end features they have. Mind you any camera that doesn't have a deadicated button and a seperate one for switching the shutter speed and one that will adjust aperture is a deal breaker for me, and I would say any serious photographer that shoots regularly in manual mode when auto adjusting settgings won't cut it.

For me its more about focal length and field of view, as full frame cameras don't have the same compression because they can use a slightly longer lens. Given a final image though (and thats what we are really talking about here: proof of the pudding and all that) there is very little between full frame and crop sensors

 

[Village Idiot]

I don't see any major draw back for most people shooting full frame. So yeah, if you have enough cash go for it.

And to my mind thats the real difference between full frame and crop, mainly price.

It's unlikely you'll outgrow a good high quality APS-C sensor with the top end features they have. Mind you any camera that doesn't have a deadicated button and a seperate one for switching the shutter speed and one that will adjust aperture is a deal breaker for me, and I would say any serious photographer that shoots regularly in manual mode when auto adjusting settgings won't cut it.

For me its more about focal length and field of view, as full frame cameras don't have the same compression because they can use a slightly longer lens. Given a final image though (and thats what we are really talking about here: proof of the pudding and all that) there is very little between full frame and crop sensors

Can you get the dynamic range out of a crop that you can certain full frames? I don't pay attention to many of the bodies anymore but would a top of the line Nikon crop compete with the DR in a D750 or D800?

 

[weepete]

I dont know a definative answer to that mate, when you get into things like DR it gets a bit difficult especially with ISO scalling. Maybe someone else can answer that. What I do know is that if you know enough go not totally mess up your image DR is useful but there are work arounds so is not a beal breaker. When you shhot landscapes like I do though big mountains in the distance are good, and wider lenses that I tend to shoot with produce a compression that shortens them. A lot of people pefer to shoot longer and it can give an image a more equivalent size to what you see, and a full frame camera enables that a bit more (ok not actually but it seems that way because you dont need to shoot as wide as for an equivalent FOV often).

But here is the thing......have you ever seen an image and thought "That would have been better if the photog was using a full frame camera"

 

[jaomul]

I don't see any major draw back for most people shooting full frame. So yeah, if you have enough cash go for it.

And to my mind thats the real difference between full frame and crop, mainly price.

It's unlikely you'll outgrow a good high quality APS-C sensor with the top end features they have. Mind you any camera that doesn't have a deadicated button and a seperate one for switching the shutter speed and one that will adjust aperture is a deal breaker for me, and I would say any serious photographer that shoots regularly in manual mode when auto adjusting settgings won't cut it.

For me its more about focal length and field of view, as full frame cameras don't have the same compression because they can use a slightly longer lens. Given a final image though (and thats what we are really talking about here: proof of the pudding and all that) there is very little between full frame and crop sensors

Can you get the dynamic range out of a crop that you can certain full frames? I don't pay attention to many of the bodies anymore but would a top of the line Nikon crop compete with the DR in a D750 or D800?

According to a certain french sensor testing site (though I'm not so sure about them) the d7200 crop nikon sensor is only beaten in dynamic range by the d810. It even (yes the crop d7200) beats the d750 by a hair

 

[Gary A.]

Some high ISO stuff. All with the Xt1 - All @ ISO 6400:

#1

#2

#3

#4

#5

No NR applied. I haven't a clue what a FF Nikon could do in a similar situation, but for me, I don't see how less noise would significantly improve these 6400 ISO images.

 

[gckless]

I've used a D7000 since they were new. Unless you're doing some really long telephoto work, I'm not sure there's not a good reason to go FX besides cost. I've been wanting to go FX for a while, but just cannot justify the cost to myself. I'm just a hobbyist at this point, and will be sticking to Nikon's high-end DX until I either start making some money doing this or fall into some extra cash. The D7200 will satisfy a large majority of your needs, with the flexibility to get lower cost lenses. Some of them are not worth it, as mentioned, so depending on what you're looking at you may still want FX lenses. I've gotten most everything of what I need out of this body. Sure, I would like some more MP shooting the D7000, but the D7200 has 24MP and is plenty. Low light performance is pretty good, but you'll still want some fast glass. Luckily, Nikon has their 35/50/85mm f/1.8s that are excellent DX lenses for very cheap.

 

[Village Idiot]

Some high ISO stuff. All with the Xt1 - All @ ISO 6400:

No NR applied. I haven't a clue what a FF Nikon could do in a similar situation, but for me, I don't see how less noise would significantly improve these 6400 ISO images.

DR is different from noise. You can shoot a photo at 100 ISO with sections that are completely black to the naked eye and bring them up to usable with noise not being an issue. So if you shoot a scene outside with a bright sky and your subjects are dark, you can bring up the dark objects to give you a good overall exposure.

 

[Gary A.]

Some high ISO stuff. All with the Xt1 - All @ ISO 6400:

No NR applied. I haven't a clue what a FF Nikon could do in a similar situation, but for me, I don't see how less noise would significantly improve these 6400 ISO images.

DR is different from noise. You can shoot a photo at 100 ISO with sections that are completely black to the naked eye and bring them up to usable with noise not being an issue. So if you shoot a scene outside with a bright sky and your subjects are dark, you can bring up the dark objects to give you a good overall exposure.

I know ISO is different than DR. I wasn't addressing DR, I was addressing high ISO (per earlier posts). Personally, I'd rather expose for my principal subjects when capturing the image, than correct in post.

 

[Ysarex]

For me its more about focal length and field of view, as full frame cameras don't have the same compression because they can use a slightly longer lens.

Compression? This doesn't make any sense. There's no focal length/field of view difference between cameras if you're using them to take the same photo.

Joe

 

[Ysarex]

Can you get the dynamic range out of a crop that you can certain full frames? I don't pay attention to many of the bodies anymore but would a top of the line Nikon crop compete with the DR in a D750 or D800?

No. The larger sensor DR is going to be more if the camera manufacturer wants to focus on that. The difference is pretty minor and is often less than a stop. If the camera design doesn't make it a priority then the APSC camera can be better. For example the D750 has better DR than my Fuji because Nikon makes that a priority. My Fuji has better DR than a Canon 5DmkIII or even the new 5DS because Canon doesn't make that a priority. Set DR as a design priority the larger sensor will tip the scale.

Joe

 

[Derrel]

I went to Fuji's site and looked at their sample images, made by Zack Arias. Every single one of these images shows substabntially LESS real detail than my 24MP Nikon FX camera does. Every. Single. Shot.

FUJINON LENS XF50-140mmF2.8 R LM OIS WR
http://www.fujifilm.com/products/di...mg/index/ff_xf50_140mmf28_r_lm_ois_wr_002.JPG
http://www.fujifilm.com/products/di...mg/index/ff_xf50_140mmf28_r_lm_ois_wr_003.JPG

Look at the eyebrows. Look at the eyes. Look very closely at the rendering of the hair. Seriously...this is nowhere near what FF cameras are creating now, in 2015.

I just wanted to correct the assertion that the X-trans sensor at 16 million pixels is now "full-frame good". No, it's nowhere near as good as a 24 million pixel Nikon or a 36 million pixel Nikon camera's file on this type of subject. But then, not every type of photography depends on high resolution, lots of fine,fine detail and extreme dynamic range capability.

 

[Gary A.]

I never asserted that Fuji APS-C had greater detail or DR than FF. I asserted that for what I shoot and how I shoot the greater detail and DR of FF is insignificant. It doesn't matter to me that with Fuji you can only identify four eyebrow hairs, while a modern FF you can see six or eight. If you need a computer to see a difference ... Then there isn't any significant difference at all.

I used to shoot FF. Back when I purchased my first 1D, there was a significant difference in IQ between APS-C and FF, especially in low light. Today, (for what I shoot and how I shoot), those differences have been reduced to insignificance. Sure you can pony up charts showing how much DR or how much less noise ... But in real world shooting do those differences matter ... Will those differences make a photo more or less successful. Again, not in how I shoot and what I shoot.

Granted, all else being equal, it takes about 50% more pixels in order to make a visual difference. But 16MP is actually quite a bit of MP's ... For most hobbyist shooting 16MP is more than sufficient for the average hobbyist photographer. There is a law of diminishing returns. After a certain baseline of IQ, you have to spend a ton of money in order for hardware to significantly improve an identical image.

As I stated previously, for what I shoot and how I shoot, vision (composition) and skill (harmonizing with the hardware) are far, far more important in determining success, (or amount of success), of an image than sensor format.

But, if I was buying Nikon, I would be hard pressed not to buy FX as the DX lenses seem limited in quality and number. If you're buying FX glass, you might as well buy a FX camera.

Sure, I would prefer to count six eyebrow hairs rather than four, but to attain that requires significant increases in hardware size and expense for which there is minimal to no return.

 

[Village Idiot]

Some high ISO stuff. All with the Xt1 - All @ ISO 6400:

No NR applied. I haven't a clue what a FF Nikon could do in a similar situation, but for me, I don't see how less noise would significantly improve these 6400 ISO images.

DR is different from noise. You can shoot a photo at 100 ISO with sections that are completely black to the naked eye and bring them up to usable with noise not being an issue. So if you shoot a scene outside with a bright sky and your subjects are dark, you can bring up the dark objects to give you a good overall exposure.

I know ISO is different than DR. I wasn't addressing DR, I was addressing high ISO (per earlier posts). Personally, I'd rather expose for my principal subjects when capturing the image, than correct in post.

So youd rather have a blown out sky and properly exposed people instead of a properly exposed sky and properly exposed people?